The single-judge bench of the Kerala High Court allowed the criminal revision petition allowed in part, upholding the conviction under Section 3(a) of the RP (UP) Act but modifying the sentence to a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default.
Sentence modified to fine of Rs.10,000/- in default simple imprisonment for two months under Section 3(a) of RP(UP) Act.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/31ST BHADRA, 1938
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1378 of 2009 ( )
Crl.A 114/2006 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, PALAKKAD CC 102/2001 of J.M.F.C.- I, OTTAPPALAM
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/1ST ACCUSED:
NAVAS, S/O. HUSSAIN, JAFFAR MANZIL, ARAKKINAR P.O., BEYPORE, CALICUT.
BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING INSPECTOR, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, SHORNUR.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SHRI.RAMESH CHAND
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.
Dated this the 22nd day of September 2016
O R D E R
The first accused in C.C. No.102 of 2001 on the files
of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ottappalam filed this revision petition challenging the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (for short 'RP (UP) Act.')
thus:-
Crl.R.P.1378/2009
: 2 :
On 30.9.2000, accused Nos.3 and 4 were arrested in
connection with Crime No.7/2000 of Shornur R.P.F.
Station. On the basis of the disclosure statement given by accused Nos.3 and 4, a search in the shop of the second accused was conducted on 30.9.2000 at 3 p.m. At that time, the revision petitioner alone was present in shop. In the search, the Railway properties, namely, one stainless steel wash basin, twenty Pandrol clips, two padlocks, and 2.5 Kg Burnt copper wire bits and sale proceeds of Rs.2,000/-, totally valued at Rs.4,185/- had been seized. The revision petitioner was arrested from the shop and his statement was also recorded. The second accused was the owner of the shop. He surrendered before the court and his statement was also recorded.
Crl.R.P.1378/2009
: 3 :
and Exts.P1 to P9 were marked for the prosecution, besides identifying MO1 to MO5 series. No evidence was adduced on the side of the revision petitioner.
Crl.R.P.1378/2009
: 4 :
offence, does not warrant any interference by this court.
6 . As regards the sentence, the learned counsel for
the revision petitioner has pleaded for leniency. The
revision petitioner was aged 21 years during the relevant period. The revision petitioner was not the owner of the shop. There is no previous conviction against the revision petitioner. There is also no allegation that the revision petitioner was involved in any other offence of similar nature subsequent to the registration of the present crime. The incident in this case occurred 16 years ago. The RP (UP) Act provides sentence of imprisonment or fine for the first offence. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the age of the revision petitioner at the time of the commission of the offence and also the period
Crl.R.P.1378/2009
: 5 :
elapsed since the incident, I am of the view that the sentence awarded by the courts below can be modified and
reduced to a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) and in default to simple imprisonment for two months under Section 3(a) of the RP(UP) Act, to secure the ends of justice. Accordingly, I order so.
In the result, this revision petition stands allowed in part as above.
The revision petitioner shall surrender before the trial
court on 22.11.2016 to suffer the sentence.
Sd/-
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR,
JUDGE
dl/23.9.2016
// True Copy //
PA to Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the concurrent finding of conviction should be interfered with on grounds of evidence appreciation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
NAVAS
STATE OF KERALA
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
